On 07 Mar 2008, at 10:02, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Chris B gave what I think is a good reply to this, but feel free to
> ask if you have further questions. I think it's important that we
> reach some consensus on why this a good idea on technical grounds
> without anyone feeling like the decision is made opaquely in some back
> room, so please raise any doubts or concerns you may still have, and
> we'll do our best to address them.
Thanks. I've a few questions concerning the objections against ctypes.
It's part of the Python standard library, brand new from v2.5, and it
allows creating extensions. Disregarding it, requires therefore good
arguments, I think. I trust you that there are, but I would like to
understand them better. For ctypes your extensions needs to be
compiled as a shared library, but as numpy is moving towards Scons
which seem to facilitate this quite a lot, is this still a difficulty/
objection? Secondly, looking at the examples given by Travis in his
Numpy Book, neither pyrex nor ctypes seem to be particularly user-
friendly concerning Numpy ndarrays (although ctypes does seem slightly
easier). From your email, I understand it's possibly to mediate this
for Cython. From a technical point of view, would it also be possible
to make ctypes work better with Numpy, and if yes, do you have any
idea whether it would be more or less work than for Cython?
Cheers,
Joris
P.S. I had some problems with bounces, sorry if this message appears
more than once.
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm